alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4145

LOUIE CLEMENT CAFFEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge.

(CR-95-225)

Submitted: October 3, 1996

Decided: October 16, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

K. E. Krispen Culbertson, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Richard S. Glaser, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Gill P. Beck, Assistant United

States Attorney, Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Louie Clement Caffey pleaded guilty to possession with attempt to

distribute marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). On

appeal, he attacks his conviction on the grounds that the district court

erred by failing to grant his "Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea for Double

Jeopardy and Motion to Dismiss." Caffey contended a federal conviction following a state seizure of his property constituted double jeopardy. Because Caffey's conviction does not violate the Double

Jeopardy Clause, we affirm the conviction.

Caffey's prosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy

Clause, because the state of North Carolina seized his property for

failure to pay state taxes on controlled substances in his possession.

Even if the seizure was punitive, federal and state governments may

prosecute a defendant for the same conduct without violating the dual

sovereignty doctrine, unless one sovereign is merely acting as a tool

of the other. United States v. Pena, 67 F.3d 153, 156 (8th Cir. 1995)

(citation omitted); see also Bartkus v. Illinois , 359 U.S. 121, 123-24

(1959) (cooperation of federal law enforcement officers with state law

officials does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause). There was no

showing here that federal officials were manipulated by state officials

in prosecuting Caffey. Thus, as this is Caffey's sole issue on appeal,

we affirm Caffey's conviction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the annual report of Communication Intelligence Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Francis V. Dane, Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:           March
10, 2009
 
 By: /s/ Francis V.
Dane
 Principal
Financial Officer
#### Mercedes VILLARREAL, Appellant, v. Jose Aquinardo GARCIA, Appellee.

No. 13115.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 10, 1956.

*755Frank Alvarado, Henry Beltran, San Antonio, for appellant.

Lewright, Dyer & Redford, Corpus Christi, Davis, Clemens, Knight & Weiss, San Antonio, for appellee.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice. .

This is a plea of privilege suit. A collision occurred in Waller County, Texas, between two trucks, one owned and driven by Mercedes Villarreal, the appellant herein, and the other by Jose Aquinardo Garcia. Neither party lives in Waller County. Appellant returned to his home in Bexar County and instituted this cause in the District Court of Bexar County. In his petition he alleged that appellee resided in Starr County, Texas, and' citation was issued and served on appellee ‘ 'in that county.

Appellee duly filed his plea of privilege alleging his residence to be in Nueces County and asking that the cause be transferred to that county. This plea of privilege was prima facie evidence of ap-pellee’s right to have the cause so transferred.

Appellant controverted this plea and undertook to hold venue in Bexar County under Subdivision 3 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., reading as follows:

> “Non-residents; residence unknown. —If one or all of several defendants reside without the State or if their residence is unknown, suit may be brought in the cotmty’in which the plaintiff resides.”

At the hearing appellant testified in ' effect that at the time of - the collision in Waller, County, appellee gave him an address in Starr County where he could be reached. Appellant alleged in his petition that appellee resided in Starr County, Texas. A citation was sent to Starr County and served upon appellee there. Appellant further testified that he did not know where appellee resides. Under all the facts, this was insufficient to sustain venue in Bexar County under said Subdivision 3.

Appellant asked in the alternative that if venue was not retained in Bexar County, that the suit be transferred to Waller County where the accident occurred. While appellant had the right to bring the ■ suit ■ in Waller County and maintain venue there, if he could meet the requirements of Subdivision 9 or 9a of Article 1995, Vernohs .Ann.Civ.Stats., he did not do so, but elected to file it in Bexar • County. Appellant having failed to show venue in Bexar County, appellee’s verified plea of privilege gave him the right to have the cause transferred to Nueces County.

The' trial court properly granted appel-lee’s plea of privilege and the order appealed from ‘is affirmed
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended May 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 15, 2011





/s/ Brian T. Beckwith


Brian T. Beckwith,


President and Chief Executive Officer








/s/ Michael L. DeMarco


Michael L. DeMarco,


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




49
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.16.5

                      AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER ADDENDUM

         THIS AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER ADDENDUM (the "Addendum") is entered
into effective as of the 29th day of March, 2004, by and between XRG, Inc.
("XRG") and RSV, Inc. ("RSV").

                                    RECITALS:

         WHEREAS, XRG and RSV are parties to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated February 2004 (the "Agreement and Plan of Merger"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement and Plan of
Merger to reflect the parties' agreement to modify the purchase consideration as
set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

         1.       Section 2(b) Adjustment of XRGC Shares of the Agreement and
                  Plan of Merger will be deleted and an additional 1,000,000
                  shares of XRG Common Stock ("XRGC Shares") will be issued to
                  the shareholder of RSV, Inc.

         2.       Except as modified hereby, the Agreement and Plan of Merger
                  remains in full force and effect.

XRG, INC.                                   RSV SHAREHOLDER:

By:                                         ------------------------------------
   -------------------------
         President

                                            ------------------------------------

                                            ------------------------------------

RSV, INC.                                   ------------------------------------

By:
   -------------------------
         President
#### Harlan BROWN et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 11, 1957.

Robert H. Hutchison, Hurt & Hutchi-son, Columbia, for appellants.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Russell Circuit Court, Honorable R. C. Tarter, Special Judge.

The movants, Harlan Brown and J. D. Murray, were convicted of the common law offense of criminal conspiracy and each of them sentenced to serve twelve months imprisonment in jail and pay a fine of $5,000.

We find no error in the record. Motion for an appeal denied, and

Judgment affirmed.
-79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 77.38 WMeters AGL
Undertaking filed with BC Securities Commission



 





EXHIBIT 4.10




BIOMIRA INC.




UNDERTAKING




TO: The British Columbia Securities Commission



     In connection with the filing by Biomira Inc. (the “Corporation”) of a
final short form base shelf prospectus dated July 13, 2004 (the “Prospectus”)
relating to the public offering of common shares, preferred shares, debt
securities and warrants, the Corporation hereby undertakes and agrees:




	 	(a)	 	to provide the British Columbia Securities
Commission with a notice of proceeds within ten days of the
completion of the distribution under any prospectus supplement
pursuant to the Prospectus; and
	 
	 	(b)	 	to pay the British Columbia Securities Commission
any additional filing fees required by the British Columbia
Securities Commission as a result of such sales.




     DATED
this 13 day of July, 2004.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BIOMIRA INC.



 

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP	 
	 	 	By their solicitors, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01391]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Arts Advisory Panel Meeting

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that one 
meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts 
will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate):
    Media Arts (application review): By teleconference. This meeting 
will be closed.

DATES: February 12, 2013; 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information with reference to 
these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of 
Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington, DC, 20506; plowitzk@arts.gov or call 202/682-5691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The closed portions of meetings are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the 
public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United 
States Code.

    Dated: January 18, 2013.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2013-01391 Filed 1-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
1

Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Zektser, Alex (FAA)

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:55 AM

To: Ngo, Dan (FAA); Bouffiou, Dale (FAA); Roberts, Brandon (FAA)

Subject: FW: Univ. of Miami - Section 333 Exemption Request for closed-set filming*

Attachments: Univ of Miami Section 333 Exemption Request.pdf; University of Miami - 16956.pdf

Dan,

Original email from Anne is below.  I’m not tech‐savvy, so not sure how to make it a pdf.

Best,

Alex Zektser

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations Division

Phone: (202) 267‐3011

Fax: (202) 267‐7971

From: Swanson, M. Anne [mailto:aswanson@cooley.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:47 PM 

To: Zektser, Alex (FAA) 

Cc: Roberts, Brandon (FAA) 

Subject: Univ. of Miami - Section 333 Exemption Request for closed-set filming* 

Alex – per your request, and as we discussed, I attach the Section 333 exemption request that the University of Miami

filed, seeking authority to use UAVs to conduct both aerial data collection and closed‐set movie filming.   I also attach

the 333 that was granted on June 17 and that we received on June 23; in footnote one, the grant specifically says it is

limited to aerial data collection, although the grant includes the final two paragraphs that are typical of 333s that

authorized closed‐set filming.    The University is very interested in having this grant corrected to include authorization

for closed set filming as well.    As you will see, these materials appear in Docket FAA‐2015‐8004.  

In support of its 333 request, the University filed a number of lengthy (and expensive) materials with a request for

confidential treatment – a flight operations manual, aircraft flight manuals for every UAV craft that the 333 specified,

and the MPTOM, the Movie Picture and Television Operating Manual – all of which at the time were required with 333

submissions.    These were all prepared by John McGraw’s team.  In my next email, I will send you the MPTOM, for which

confidentiality was sought.

M. Anne Swanson 

Cooley LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 700 

(enter from 12th and E Streets) 

Washington, DC 20004-2400 

Direct: +1 202 776 2534 • Fax: +1 202 842 7899 • 

Bio: www.cooley.com/aswanson • Practice: www.cooley.com/business 
2

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 

If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System 

Administrator.
#### Bobby G. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28097.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1956.

*663No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                            PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Catuity,
Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14b or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.

Alfred H. Racine III, the President and Chief Executive Officer, and John H.
Lowry, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, each certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company.

Date: August 15, 2005

                                                        /s/ Alfred H. Racine
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Alfred H. Racine III
                                                        President and Chief
                                                        Executive Officer

                                                        /s/ John H. Lowry
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        John H. Lowry
                                                        Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       19
#### William Isaac DAVIS v. The STATE of Texas.

No. 28381.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

, „ . ,, , Unlawfully possessing a narcotic drug is the offense; the punishment, ten years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his affidavit stating that he desires his appeal in this case dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
 
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on his knowledge:
 
 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.
 
 /s/ Michael P. OliverMichael P. Oliver

President and Chief Executive Officer
 
 Dated: March 31, 2011
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF**
 **THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the quarterly report of I-trax, Inc. (the **“Company”** )
        on Form
        10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the **“Report”** ),
        I,
        David R. Bock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
        Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)  The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
        David R. Bock
 David
        R.
        Bock
 Executive
        Vice President and
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 
 
 May
        15,
        2006
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), Paul O. Koether, the Chief Executive Officer of Kent International Holdings, Inc., (the "Company"), and Bryan P. Healey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his  knowledge:





1.
The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended December 31, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;





and





2.
The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:    October 13, 2011








/s/ Paul O. Koether


Paul O. Koether


Chief Executive Officer











/s/ Bryan P. Healey


Bryan P. Healey


Chief Financial Officer





---